The most important thing about disaster planning is not what is
said, but what is assumed. Particularly crucial are the assumptions that
are made about human and group behavior in disasters. If the assumptions are
valid, then what is said about the planning process has the possibility of being
relevant and worthwhile. If the assumptions are invalid, the planning advocated
cannot be anything but poor.

Unfortunately, studies by social scientists in recent years have
shown that much disaster planning, as well as training programs, are based on
incorrect assumptions about such behavior. Especially distressing is the
mistaken view that actual or potential disaster victims do not react too well in
the face of danger. This is simply not true: reality is different from the
assumption.

Assumptions

Three assumptions are commonly made. There is the view that human
beings will "panic" or break down under extreme stress. It is also widely
believed that antisocial behavior - especially of a criminal nature - will
surface. Finally, it is thought that disaster victims will be passive and
absolutely dependent on organizations for help.

Were this to be true, it would have important implications for
disaster planning and response measures. There could, for example, be genuine
concern about ordering an evacuation because of the fear of panic. Also,

As a whole, people do not panic. Actual instances, of hysterical
breakdowns are extremely rare. In fact, instead of flight away from danger sites
it is much more likely that there will be convergence on the impacted areas.
Instead of aimless running around, actual or potential disaster victims move to
what they consider safe locations and attempt to do what they think has to be
done in an emergency. Neither do disaster victims develop psychoses or severe
mental illness. Disaster victims are usually quite frightened, but that does not
mean that they will act impulsively, selfishly, or crazily. The usual response
is an attempt to consciously assess the nature of the situation and to consider
the available courses of action.

Antisocial behavior

Many inexperienced officials and journalists apparently see
disasters as opportunities for antisocial behavior to surface. It is speculated
that deviant behavior will emerge, with widespread looting and other forms of
criminal behavior. Essentially, it is the assumption that the latent evil in
humans will be manifest to the extreme at times of disasters.

This view has also been shown to be incorrect. What generally
emerges is prosocial behavior. Many stories of looting will circulate, but
actual instances will be rare and if they occur they will often be done by
outsiders rather than the impacted population. Disorderly crowd behavior seldom
occurs. Crime rates often drop and exploitative behavior is relatively
infrequent. Usually, far more goods will be shared and freely given away than
could conceivable be looted.

Dependency

There is a tendency to assume that disaster victims are left
dazed, shocked, and unable to cope with extreme physical and psychological
stress. It is supposed that victims are so disoriented and demoralized that they
will need outsiders to do the most elementary tasks for them such as being fed,
housed and clothed. Thus, it is expected that an impacted population will
passively wait until organized help arrives from the outside.

This is not borne out by studies either. Victims are not
immobilized by even the most catastrophic of events. They are neither devoid of
initiative, nor do they passively wait for others to take care of them and their
needs.

What emerges instead is considerable individual and group
initiative. Usually, before full impact is over, search and rescue efforts are
initiated by neighbors, and the injured are brought to where medical care can be
obtained. Shelter is actively sought and offered by kin and friends, and single
home rebuilding efforts are started early. In just about all disasters,
cooperative informal initiative and assistance will be the predominant behavior.
Formal helping organizations will be sought and depended on only as a last
resort or under unusual circumstances.

Conclusions

We do not want to leave a picture that individuals by themselves
or together with a few friends and neighbors can handle all emergency related
problems. There are things that individuals can or should not do for themselves.
Neighbors might find victims in search and rescue efforts but they cannot
provide medical treatment. Similarly, heavy debris clearance, rebuilding of
bridges, restoration of electric power, testing of water for contaminants, etc.,
are not tasks that private citizens or small groups of neighbors can perform
very well. Furthermore, such matters as issuance of warnings, designing of
priorities for emergency actions, integrating the convergence of outside relief
help, restocking medical supplies, or making decisions about recovery measures,
etc., of necessity have to be organizational responsibilities.

Is the picture we have depicted of human behavior a universal and
absolute one? It is by far the typical and most frequent one which will be
encountered but exceptions can occasionally be found. A disaster or a threat
will not bring order, except very temporarily, to a society wracked by civil
strife. If a community is plagued by widespread stealing on an everyday basis,
such behavior will not substantially disappear except very momentarily at the
time of the emergency. If a population is living on a bare subsistence basis
daily, there can be only fleeting sharing of goods with victims when a disaster
strikes. Past situations still continue to be the best predictor of future
behavior. However, our point is that disasters in themselves do not markedly
increase social pathology, criminal behavior, or conflict over their normal
rates of occurrence.

If, instead of panic, relatively controlled behavior, order, and a
fair amount of personal and family initiative are the norm, different kinds of
disaster planning and response measures are indicated. Unless they have clear
evidence to the contrary, disaster planners and emergency personnel should
assume that they will be faced with the more positive rather than the negative
features of human behavior. They, as well as those responsible for disaster
training, must be careful to avoid the mythologies and stereotypes which
prevail. There is in fact the danger that if the incorrect assumption is made
and acted upon, such as the supposed passive dependency of victims, a self
fulfilling prophecy will be the result.

In the main, human beings rise to the challenge of disasters. It
is in the helping organizations where most of the response problems occur. Such
groups and agencies should not compound their problems by making the wrong
assumptions about the victims with which they will deal. It is our hope that the
remarks made here will contribute toe realistic perspective on disaster
behavior.